tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83746708534645340892024-03-08T06:35:35.292-05:00ff21stff21st = founding father of the twenty-first century. These are the words and thoughts of President Henderson West...45th President of the United States of America.Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-65422377917132957112013-01-14T13:40:00.000-05:002013-01-14T13:40:10.179-05:00A Modern Def'n of Equality - Access is a Better Determinant than Biology<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #222222; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">An excerpt from "ff21st" Chapter 12 pps. 277-278</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #222222; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #222222; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">---------------------------</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #222222; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #222222; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Up until the attempt on my life, I more or less proposed the thinking
that humanity was equal by the standards of the United Nations. I did, however, hold some deep reservations
that everyone was actually equal in terms of contribution to society, and of
value to others on an individual level.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #222222; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #222222; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To me the sole determinant of equality should simply not be the fact that you
biologically exist. Not to create a lousy
analogy, but there is still a common phrase in use, which people who have contributed
little use in terms of validation, in comparison with those who have contributed
significantly more. That phrase is: “their shit stinks the same as mine.” My typical response to this assertion is to
say “if your sole criterion for valuing another human’s relevance is the smell
of their excrement, then you are right.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #222222; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #222222; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The one area where I do fully believe there should be equality is in
terms of “equality of access” and this principle I hold dear. Every individual should have access to the
ability to earn a living. Every
individual should have access to basic healthcare and medicine. Every individual should have access to clean
water, food and shelter. Every
individual should have access to free movement around the globe.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #222222; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #222222; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I do not look at these as innate rights, rather ones that we as evolved citizens of the US should strive for, not only for our fellow Americans, but for people around the globe. I don’t consider there to be any other equality claim other than the access points. Every individual with their basic needs taken care of, now has the ability to live where they want, earn a living, choose how to live their life. They must find their own way which to me is the true life experience. Of course, even now as we approach 2050 there are still many parts of the world that have to improve in all of these areas.</span></span></div>
<br />Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-12908171360258581062012-12-28T13:39:00.000-05:002012-12-28T13:39:41.831-05:00The 7-1/2 Year Marriage License<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Excerpt from Chapter 9 -- Pages 206-209</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">---------------------------------------</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The policy of termed marriage licenses was an extremely
novel one. I viewed it at the time as a
bit reprehensible in my heart, but the government could not overlook the will
of the people. The idea of termed
marriages worked out to be perfect on just about every level. As divorce rates, by that time, had grown to
almost sixty percent, there seemed to be no point in marriages being considered
for life anymore. It just wasn’t the way
that families in America were structured.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another benefit was the strain on the relationship
that this kind of the marriage alleviated.
There really was not the need for a messy divorce as people knew that
they could just wait out the current term of their marriage and that would be
the end of it. Of course, messy break-ups
of marriages did not become a thing of the past, as the dilemma is still a big
problem when both parties do not want to separate to the same degree. However, that was no different than what was
going on prior to the termed licenses so it didn’t matter all that much.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A third benefit was the reduction of costs of legal
fees. Divorce law was a massive business
and usually the biggest cost incurred during separations. Since the settlement was now predetermined as
part of the marriage license, legal expenses were lessened. By 2025, hardly anyone went to court
anymore. Initially, there were many
marriage licenses that were called into question when the marriage broke up,
and it was primarily by the person who had not increased financially as much as
the other.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Prior to 2018, however, there was a great injustice
happening in America as the wealthier person was unceremoniously being robbed
of half their wealth as a result of a divorce.
The prime example that began the backlash was Tiger Woods divorce. Though he was clearly guilty of many
infidelities, he had to part with over $500,000,000. No one ever contested that Tiger earned all
the revenue for the couple, and that she certainly provided well in her role as
mother and wife, but at the end of the day I don’t think anyone felt she
deserved that much money after just three years of marriage. There was very much a sentiment in America at
the time that Tiger was, in fact, being punished.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The situation as I mentioned earlier, is that many
women viewed their appearance and sexuality as their means of gaining stability
in society. These women were regularly
initiating divorces at ridiculous high numbers as a means of cashing in on
their husbands wealth. This happened at
all levels and needed to be curtailed.
To be fair though, many men who found themselves in these situations
were quite culpable in sustaining this circumstance as they married the women
for their appearance.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The termed marriage license had a list of independent
assets as well as the expected financial positions for each partner throughout the
balance of the marriage. There usually was
a willingness on both parties to share matrimonial assets that grew (or shrunk)
over the period of the license, and that was agreed upon at the time as
well. Whatever amount in either hard cash
or percentages of assets was agreed upon was what was rewarded at the end of
the license period. Most of the time, it
was a 50/50 split, so in practice remarkably little changed. Where there was a substantive improvement in
the dissolution phase, was where one party had a disproportionate amount of
assets at the outset. These divorces
were now settled in no time and the parties involved could get on with their lives.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The terms of the license was as follows: If one of the persons involved was in their
first marriage the period was 7-1/2 years in duration. All other licenses were for
five years. Renewal of your marriage
license was automatically a five-year period if no termination request was
received. After the second renewal of a
license at 12-1/2 years of marriage, an update to the asset list had to be submitted.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The notion of common law marriages was entirely
abandoned. Couples that lived together
without a marriage license were not entitled to any assets other than their own
personal ones. This meant that if a couple
were together and did not register a marriage license, and then they broke up,
there was no such thing as palimony or financial compensation to either. The thinking was that as traditional
relationships were being abandoned then so should the common-law approach. The couple was either building a life
together, which in this case meant you were married, or you weren’t. Marriage licenses were no longer seen as an
emotional type of agreement but rather a legal one. It made sense that everyone entering a
relationship that would likely end. It
was better to address this scenario up front with clarity, rather than after
the fact when emotional and vindictive thinking and legal posturing would be prevalent.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Not surprisingly, the termed marriage licenses caught
on like wild fire and in the first year, over 15,000,000 licenses were
registered on-line. It only took about thirty
minutes as long as you had your asset inventory (which was updatable as
required). There was no need to go to a
church, hire a lawyer, and register at town hall or even say “I do” if you
didn’t want to. We were quite kitschy in
having both parties click on an “I DO” button as a form of agreement to the
terms of the license they were submitting. </span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-71003008187185789462012-12-14T13:41:00.002-05:002012-12-15T17:32:25.852-05:00Position on Gun Control and Punishment<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Chapter 8 -- pps 168-170</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Author's note: Kennedy and Newfoundland join the USA in 2016.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The quintessential example of the “framers intent”
that we were able to implement first in Kennedy and Newfoundland (two new US states) was in the
area of gun control. I do not in any way
shape or form disagree that the Second amendment gives the right to bear
arms. We, however, took a much more
rational rather than historical or patriotic approach to reinterpret this right
to exclude concealed weapons and all assault weapons.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Handguns and shot guns were allowed, but only under
license and permit and certainly under overall guidelines on how they should be
maintained and when they could be utilized.
Of course, in 2016 the usual rhetoric started about the rights and
freedoms of Americans but with the support of our new American citizens in
Kennedy and Newfoundland, who did not want guns in their states, we were able to
frame an argument to continue gun regulation that would not have been possible
at any other time. The initial trial
period and success of the efforts in Kennedy and Newfoundland eventually led
most of the other states to implement similar laws. Today in 2043, only Texas and Alaska have not
implemented some form of gun control.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I have been accused on occasion of not defending the
Constitution fully, but I disagree with this assessment as the Constitution was
always part of any and all discussions.
Our argument was based once again on the intent of the founding
fathers. It is pretty clear that the
right to bear arms is matched with a desire to keep unwanted military personnel
out of one’s personal premises. This was
of course the result of three guiding objectives in the 1700s. One, the British were to be fought at all
costs, two, the right to own property and the subsequent right to protect your
private property was something worth fighting for and three, the freedom to be
left alone. Of these three, I clearly
think that the second point was the one that the founding fathers were trying
to protect at the time. Let`s face it,
it was the mid-1700s and property was scarce so the point was that a homeowner
who had taken the time to develop and build a property had ever right to know
that the property could not just be taken away from them and that the use of
personal force against any usurper was appropriate. Keep in mind that the new Americans in the
1700s were trying to establish the concept of private property since they did
not have ownership rights while they had been in Europe. Also, home owners did not have to acquiesce
to any type of governmental expropriation of property. This too was a substantial structural change
by Americans who were unable to resist against the land owning classes and, in
fact, their goods and possessions as well as their private persons were
ultimately owned by their superiors while in Europe. These rights would have to be defended by force
whenever necessary by the new Americans.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Utilizing this rationale, the case was made that the use
of firearms to protect private property was universally justified but limited
to handguns. Hunting of course was a prominent
part of the culture in Kennedy and Newfoundland and that was not going to
change, so shotguns were perfectly acceptable as well. What were not welcome were concealed weapons
and assault weapons, both of which were banned and considered illegal from day
one of Kennedy’s and Newfoundland’s founding.
Personal protection on the streets was not considered a valid reason to
carry a gun. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">-------------------</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Three items made this approach possible.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The first, as mentioned earlier was the willingness of
our new US citizens to go along with this approach, and as I mentioned it was
actually a mandate of the new Americans joining the USA. Second, was the harsh punishments handed out
by the courts towards anyone found with a gun of any sort in their possession
without a license or hunting permit. As
well, not having your gun secured properly at home or within mobility situations,
for example, driving to a campsite, were met with exceptionally large
fines. For example, all guns during
transportation had to be unloaded, in a hard-shell gun case, in a locked
position and never in an unlocked part of the vehicle except for loading and
unloading.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The third thing was that no costs were attributed to
licensing or registering of guns. All
guns had to be registered and it was a very easy and non-bureaucratic
process. You provided your name, your
address, the gun make and model as well as the registration number on the
gun. Ammunition did not have to be
registered. If you were found with a gun
anywhere on your possession or on your property that was unregistered it was an
automatic jail sentence and then a probationary period.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If someone used a gun in the commitment of a
crime against another then the automatic jail time period was a minimum of two
years. Discharging a weapon in the
commitment of a crime carried with it a minimum sentence of ten years and if an
injury was incurred then it went to twenty years. Murder with a gun became an automatic death
penalty regardless of what the motive was determined to be. If a husband killed his wife he received a death
sentence, if someone killed an innocent bystander they received a death
sentence. Guns were not to be tolerated
under any circumstances in the execution of violent crime.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Some people at the time, considered the automatic death
penalty as particularly harsh and inhumane.
Considering of course that the death penalty did not even exist in
Canada prior to joining the US it was also a bit of a surprise. The new citizens of Kennedy and Newfoundland
though were adamant that the violence that is associated with certain parts of
US culture would not come to their states.
The new Americans associated the American violent streak in relation
mostly to the prevalence and acceptance of guns by the community at large in
the United States. They felt that harsh
deterrents were the best way to combat any infiltration of this poor part of own
US culture.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As previously mentioned, one significant problem with
the US legal system in the early twenty-first century was that all deterrence
had been removed from the system. Now, as
we know, forgiveness is a big part of the American way but as I have mentioned
many times throughout these pages, personal responsibility had to become more
of a hall mark of being an American.
This was especially so in the world of violent crime. For too long, perpetrators of violent crime
were too often able to escape appropriate justice due to a number of excuses
such as over-crowding of prisons, bureaucracy, inept legal representation,
access to superior legal representation and a myriad of other rules that were
designed to protect their right.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Being considered innocent rather than guilty was a
fine moral principle and one that I support fanatically as everyone knows. But once guilt has been established,
especially in this instance where we were referring to gun usage, punishment
needed to become very severe. The main
thing that citizens came to understand that if guns were utilized in an
appropriate manner and in the proper way then absolutely no retribution would
ever come to that person. However, when
guns because utilized in criminal enterprises then there would be zero
tolerance. It only took six months of
harsh punishments before the issues surrounding guns virtually vanished over
night in the new states. In Kennedy
there were only eight murders in the entire calendar year of 2020 and only one involved
a gun. In Newfoundland there were no
murders and only two people even got shot.
Let`s face it, the fear of actual and real punishment is really the only
option you have against a criminal as they have already demonstrated the they
are not committed to societal norms and expectations.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Also, as I mentioned earlier I am not opposed to more
harsh sentences for people under-taking wrong-doing, especially in relation to
violent crime. The lack of personal
accountability and the ridiculous tone of the legal profession made prosecution
of violent offenders almost impossible in the early part of the century. I felt very strongly that this had to change
and I fully supported the desire of Kennedy and Newfoundland to not only impose
the death penalty but to utilize it.</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-52824934356267355202012-12-12T19:36:00.001-05:002012-12-12T19:36:30.166-05:00Valuing Wealth<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; text-align: justify;">Chapter 2 - pages 25, 26</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The foundation of my thinking was that those individuals
who make the greatest contribution to their field should reap the greatest
returns in terms of power, leadership and of course financial reward. The other premise is that there needed to be
a shift in what was considered a rewarding industry. For example, actors can make millions of
dollars for entertaining American children, while teachers make tens of
thousands for teaching them. Business
leaders make millions or even billions of dollars while scientists make a
fraction of that.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As a corollary thought, those who made the least
contribution should not expect to receive much beyond basic sustenance. America was founded on hard work, initiative
and honesty and these types of efforts would gain reward in the immediate
future. However, those who chose to do
very little or thought that life owed them a living were soon to find out that
America owed them nothing.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My goal was never, nor will it ever be, to dictate the
income, power or leadership that any individual could attain, but rather to
have society at large play a greater role in determining what roles are worthy
of substantive financial rewards, and which are not. Just to make a simple argument, does a
baseball player deserve to make five million dollars while a fireman makes fifty
thousand dollars? Many Americans of
course who believe in complete freedom say yes due to their belief in freedom
and the free market. Many people will
find it hard to comprehend that I agree with these principles as well. What I set out to do though, was to have the
market and society change the definition of freedom to personal responsibility
and have a free market where ethics, values and contribution were considered
the most valuable characteristics of successful people.</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-34961470182035635452012-12-04T18:38:00.000-05:002012-12-04T18:38:08.178-05:00Two New States -- Kennedy and Newfoundland<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Chapter 8 -- Kennedy and Newfoundland join the United States as the 51st and 52 states</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The creation of two new US states on July 4<sup>th</sup>,
2016 was probably the single greatest legacy economically and militarily of my
term as president. With the purchase
from Canada of the eastern portion of their country, which included Eastern
Quebec, the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and
the island portion of Newfoundland the USA headed into a period of growth and
prosperity due to the expansion of American businesses, expansion of military
resources, securement of natural resources, increased shipping capabilities and
the ingenuity and passion of the new Americans who lived in the regions.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In hindsight, it seems ridiculous how easy the
purchase of foreign lands were for the US and especially with so little fanfare
and resentment of the international community.
I think this was the result of two very important, but different factors. The first was that the area we were purchasing
was of little consequence on the international stage such that no one cared all
that much, and secondly that the Provincial governments and the citizens who
lived in the Eastern region of Quebec and the Maritimes were so disillusioned
with their Canadian federal government that they were over-whelmingly in favor
of the purchase. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Just as a quick recap, the states that we all now know
as New York, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Kennedy and Newfoundland were all
different prior to July 4<sup>th</sup>, 2016.
New York State was extended on its eastern border to include the city of
East Montreal. Vermont was extended
north to the area across from Quebec City while New Hampshire’s borders were
extended following the border with Maine to Riviere du Loup. Maine received a tremendous benefit by
receiving all the land north of Kennedy to the opening of the St. Lawrence
Seaway.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The region that was formerly referred to as the
Maritime Provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island) became
one all-new American state known as Kennedy.
The island portion of the former province of Newfoundland and Labrador
became the state of Newfoundland.
Labrador became part of Quebec.
The island known as Anticosti which sits at the entrance to the St.
Lawrence River was split evenly with the northern part staying as part of
Canada and the southern portion becoming US territory as part of Maine. Maine became the primary area for investment
and shipping routes for the St. Lawrence which was shared fairly and equally
with Canada.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Even to this day, the fact that we purchased these
areas for three hundred billion dollars still amazes me considering the
prosperity and ingenuity that the region has shown. The Newfoundlanders and Kenndyites, as new American citizens, have become role models for the rest of Americans on how to live in a peaceful and orderly manner. They demonstrate an unforeseen hospitality and
demonstrate to the world a fair amount of empathy for the overall society at
large. The 51<sup>st</sup> and 52<sup>nd</sup> states of the United States of America have become not only stellar examples of US society, but have also been recognized as ideal societies around the world.</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-43577604201819319382012-11-27T21:24:00.001-05:002012-11-28T08:12:11.066-05:00Two and a Half Men<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Chapter 8 -- Two and a Half Men p.195</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">------------------------------</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Personally, I recall that I had been a fan of Two
and a Half Men, but I always cringed somewhat with the concept of a show about
a household where a child was being brought up without much supervision and the
complete lack of parental discretion that was being exercised. In Two and a Half Men, Charlie Sheen’s
character was uncle to the youngster involved and he was a forty year-old
alcoholic, womanizer who floated through life yet received all the rewards that
society at the time could offer. He had
a beach front house in Malibu, beautiful women, nice cars, essentially the ability
to be totally selfish in his actions.
His brother was considered an amusing sidekick who was divorced, broke
and generally just a bit of a square. He
usually tried to do the right thing by his son, but was ostracized by his brother
for being such a loser. The son grew up
on TV to be portrayed essentially as someone with no intelligence and no
prospects for the future.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Upon a personal collapse by Charlie Sheen, Ashton Kutcher
was put into the role. He was a youthful
internet billionaire who had the mind and social awareness of a teenager. The son at this point was relegated to making
bathroom humor and being a dopey young adult who smoked a lot of pot. The producers of the show, at this time,
chose that the father’s character should become somewhat mentally unstable and
had him in and out of stressful conditions until the show went off the air in
2015. The show tried many tactics to
keep up viewers and resorted to the bottom of the barrel, I thought, when they
introduced lesbian grandmothers.</span></div>
Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-59416875590486314152012-11-13T09:28:00.000-05:002012-11-13T09:28:57.059-05:00excerpt from chapter 9 - female sexuality in the media<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Chapter 9 - pages 204-205</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">-------------------------------------</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What I had a severe disagreement with in 2012, was
that sexuality had become the dominant cultural attribute that women have in
the world in order to live their life and to achieve what they want. This very much is the result of media
influence and the resultant obsession with female appearance as the defining
characteristic of a woman’s value. This
to me was abhorrent. Too many girls were
content with just being recognized for being attractive or sexual, and used
this as their sole criteria for their position in the world. Before continuing, let me take a moment to
point out that I am not above admiring a beautiful woman and I ended up
marrying one of the most beautiful, but in Natalie’s case, there was an
abundance of other attributes that affirmed the original attraction and the
fact that we were in love was predicated on many other aspects of her talent, intelligence,
character and personality. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I distinctly remember that I was at a coffee shop in
Seattle back around 2002, and there was a magazine rack. While I waiting for my coffee, I was looking
at the magazine covers and I noticed one magazine specifically called “Complete
Woman.” I smiled to myself as I read the
content headlines on the cover of the magazine.
They comprised two articles on satisfying their men in bed, two on hair
and make-up tips, one on losing their winter weight and one on fashions for
spring. I remember openly chuckling to
myself that the magazine was called “Complete Woman.” Even Cosmopolitan magazine didn’t simplify
women to this standard of being just attractive and a sexual object for men’s
benefit. It turned out, however, that
this was exactly what was happening and girls were being influenced into
adopting this self-image.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I started asking myself what was behind all this at
the time and I came to realize that it was the Mom’s who were encouraging this
notion and allowing their daughters to focus on their female sexuality as the
core of their femininity. This contention
goes back to the notion I referred to earlier, as an entire generation of girls
had been raised with the influence of Madonna in the 1980s and embraced the
desire to be sexual.</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-68669491164438323282012-11-07T06:33:00.000-05:002012-11-07T06:34:48.239-05:00excerpt for Chapter 2 - election results<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.450000762939453px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">excerpt from Chapter 2 page 37</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.450000762939453px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.450000762939453px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">-----------------------------------</span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.450000762939453px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.450000762939453px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Henderson West was elected with 55.1% of the popular vote and received the highest number of individual votes ever in the history of presidential elections in the USA. That 55.1% of the popular vote represented over eighty million American citizens. This represented a tremendous mandate and an over-whelming personal vote of confidence from the American electorate.</span></span>Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-34102117878669745372012-11-06T19:50:00.000-05:002012-11-06T19:50:27.036-05:00excerpt from Chapter 2 - STAND UP AMERICA election campaign<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">excerpt from Chapter 2 - page 33</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">---------------------</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The circumstance that I chose to be positive
throughout my communications with the American public touched a lot of positive
nerves as well. As mentioned previously,
by 2012 many people had been hurt by the recession and were extremely
disillusioned and lacking a bit of faith in the American system. My goal was to restore faith and confidence
not only in America but in themselves.
Hence my election platform became STAND UP AMERICA.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">STAND UP AMERICA became a rallying cry through the
latter part of 2012 as a spirit of renewal took hold. We as individuals have all been down at one
time or another and the measure of any person’s strength is the ability to get
going again. This is the same for a
nation, especially one as great as the USA.
The spirit of “standing up” for one’s own situation and then being
responsible for improving ones personal state of affairs fuelled a culture of
success and hard work that lead to a much more positive attitude within our
borders and lead to an almost immediate recovery. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One of the difficulties we
have as Americans is the ability to admit that maybe we make mistakes or that
we can occasionally let ourselves down.
I’ve mentioned numerous times that we were embracing a culture of blaming
others for what has happened in our individual lives but for most Americans to
admit that they were wrong is just ludicrous.
Well, what I recognized and shared was that we had created our own mess
through a very out-dated governmental model that was no longer relevant in the twenty-first
century, a business culture that celebrated profit as the only reason for being
and a citizen base that had lost its collective American spirit. </span></span><br />
Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-59210735121103468302012-11-05T12:03:00.000-05:002012-12-01T07:45:24.939-05:00excerpt from Chapter 10 - foreign relations<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Chapter 10 - pps. 230-231</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">------------------</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One of my key tenets of being an American is
that we as Americans are the thought leaders for the modern world. We can use this leadership to take the
actions and create the strategy and platform to deliver a world in which
everyone has the ability to exist in a peaceful manner and to pursue their own
life objectives. That is, if we choose to
be tolerant of other systems. Whether
they be managing a farm for the state, creating the biggest company ever known
to man or pursuing the word of Allah.
All to me are valuable contributions to society and should be
acknowledged and respected.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In order to be a thoughtful leader for the
world, however, you have to have respect for the views of others, rather than hold an overt contempt for how the rest of the world lives. Think about it this way, how often in your
life have you as an individual done something because someone forced you
too? Probably not too often, or if you
did end up doing it you did it begrudgingly, the results were likely not as good
as they could have been. I always found
that if you could get people to do things because they wanted to contribute and
feel that they mattered, then the results will be substantially better and
result in dramatic successes and exponential improvement for whatever area you
are focusing on. Once you have people
motivated for success and working to the best of their abilities, then you can
propose new thoughts and methodologies and philosophies to attain even higher
goals.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, with all that being said, quite often it
is advantageous for your counter-parts to know you are serious about your
capabilities and your desires. This does
not mean strong-armed approaches to negotiations and conflict resolution, but
rather that the inherent knowledge should be that your opponent is truly aware of
your objectives. This all sounds like
threatening behavior but utilized correctly it is not. Being number one gives you a distinct
advantage. No one ever said that
everything had to have an equal result, rather just an amicable one, and one that
everyone can walk away from with some level of positivity and know their role.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Following the financial collapse of Greece and
the attempts by the EU to save it, Greece’s internal politics became a shambles
and its people were crushed in spirit.
Greeks had been quite used to prosperity and what I will call a “relaxed
work ethic” coupled with extremely generous social policies. When the Greek government could no longer
afford to keep up the social policies for the nation, there was nothing to fall
back on, and the bottom fell out of the economy. Even at the end, and with generous offers from
Germany and the EU, sadly there was an unwillingness on the part of the Greek
population to accept much in the way of austerity measures. Therefore, Greece declared bankruptcy at the
end of 2013.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">With nowhere left to turn, the monarchy of
Saudi Arabia arrived with the offer of billions in support. In exchange, they asked for a prominent seat
within the future government of Greece.
This in and of itself was not necessarily such a horrific thing on its own, but what was most troubling for people was that the Saudi’s were offering a
direct cash payment and jobs to individual citizens if they converted to
Islam. </span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-31310594467006537402012-10-30T19:45:00.000-04:002012-12-01T07:47:42.474-05:00excerpt from Chapter 6 - flood example<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Chapter 6 - page 102</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">-----------------------------</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One excellent example of “Constructive Capitalism”
came from Home Depot who shut all their stores in the Southwest US during the
Austin, Texas floods in late 2013. As
part of their relief effort, the Home Depot shipped warehouses full of supplies
and sent their staff to the flooded area to immediately start rebuilding the
damaged communities. The employees were
paid in full their regular salary and all their travelling expenses.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans (August 2005) was
still a fresh memory in 2013, and no one wanted to see the same thing happening
in the city of Austin, so Home Depot mobilized almost five thousand employees,
delivered untold truck loads of supplies and utilized their management skills
to deliver on-ground support to those affected by the floods. Just to be clear, the Home Depot was not involved
at all in the initial rescue or relief effort but rather the rebuilding efforts
that followed. Fortunately, the rescue
and relief efforts were pretty well managed as opposed to Katrina, so the
rebuilding process could start right away.
The Home Depot did not wait for insurance issues, local zoning
discussions or the media. They just
started rebuilding and repairing people’s homes so the owners could move back
in.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">The effect was immediate and astounding for Home
Depot. Home Depot had forfeited a </span></span><span style="line-height: 18px;">sizable</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"> portion of their marketing budget to fund this effort but certainly reaped the
rewards from a business standpoint.
Their brand value sky-rocketed as did their stock price following the
Austin floods. By March of 2015, Home
Depot’s stock price had almost tripled to just under $200. When asked about their efforts at the time to
make such a large commitment, the CEO said that he just could not sit back and
watch people in trouble when he knew he had the resources at his finger tips to
do something about it. He pointed out
that Home Depot was monstrously successful in the South Texas area and that he
felt that they should contribute as much as possible. Many share holders at the time questioned his
decision as they felt that the Home Depot was going to potentially forego billions
in sales as a result of the rebuilding effort and that the materials should not
have been just “given-away”. Home Depot
at the time made it clear to the stock-holders, that as a part of the local
business community, they had an obligation to be involved in the rebuilding of
its communities whenever required. It is
not moral to profit from the suffering of its customers. This was revolutionary corporate thinking.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Today, the Home Depot has a regular rebuilding program
that goes to disaster areas all over the world and pitches in “on-ground” as
required. They are under no obligation
to wait for governmental efforts other than not to interfere with rescue
efforts. </span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-83560217068224815832012-10-29T09:52:00.000-04:002012-12-01T07:49:39.937-05:00Excerpt from Chapter 4<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Chapter 4 -- page 56</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">-----------------------</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">One of the most horrific and misguided thoughts of the
time that got embedded in the American psyche was that compassion was equal to
socialism or communism.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">By 2009, just the comment of a compassionate
governmental policy made the speaker into, at a minimum a socialist, and in the
worse case, a Hitleresque demagogue who was striving to undermine the entirety
of the USA. That may sound melodramatic,
but phrases like that were actually used at the time by American citizens. I can still remember with disgust back in
2010 when President Obama was trying to implement some type of universal health
insurance program so that every American citizen would have access to health
care. The shocking thing to me is that a
system, which cared about the general health of all citizens, was considered
akin to Nazism by some people. Even to
this day that still strikes me as the most absurd type of rhetoric. To me and many others, it was an unconscionable
misuse of our American right to freedom of speech, and I argued at the time
that it should be considered hate speech.
To utilize NAZI imagery in an American political debate is simply
immoral on any level.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Republican Party and the Tea Party Movement were
mostly to blame for this rhetoric, and as early as 1980, there had come a point
where political expediency was the paramount goal. Rhetoric could be founded upon any truth or
mistruth and could even be what many folks would consider slanderous. The shocking thing about this situation is
that so many American citizens actually accepted this rhetoric and supported
it. I can understand that there was
disillusion in the US at the time due to the 2008 economic collapse but to sink
to such lows should have been offensive to so many more people. This is why I argued so strongly that a new definition
of freedom needed to be established, as we as a nation, had sunk just too far in
our willingness to allow anyone to do or say whatever they chose in the
political arena.</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-55885016201606070182012-10-25T08:34:00.000-04:002012-12-01T07:54:02.211-05:00Excerpt from Chapter 6 -- Constructive Capitalism<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Chapter 6 -- page 100</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">-------------------------</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One of my guiding business principles is what I
referred to as “Constructive Capitalism." Let’s face it, I got rich simply by making the world a better
place. That was always my goal from a
young age. I’ll be honest and admit that
I also went into business for recognition, wealth and challenge. However, I always operated with the
philosophy that I would like to build a legacy that would be respected. When my company developed the efficient food
product known as “NutrisHouse” Bars which delivered a person’s complete nutritional
daily requirements, then that really was the fulfillment of my dreams. I ultimately have far surpassed any and all
of my hopes.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Upon my company’s ultimate success in the USA and
Europe, we then started developing the same food products for poorer
countries. The products for these
regions cost about a third of the more consumer-oriented products that were
being sold and marketed in the western areas.
Of course, everyone knows that the flavor was not as good and the
packaging was not as elaborate, but the nutrition value was the same. Every single country in the world that
imported NutrisHouse Bars saw improved health almost immediately. Even where there were still dictators and
civil wars at the time, the health of the citizens improved.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> “Constructive
Capitalism” evolved as a concept that in essence requires a company in order to
be successful to do doing something tangibly beneficial to improve the state of
the world. This was not necessarily a
unique concept that I developed, rather a progression of the changing
consumer-mindset and some companies realizing that it was in their best
interest to go this route in order to maximize profitability. “Constructive Capitalism” was also not just
about financial contribution either.
Just writing a check to a charitable organization seemed unsettling to
most people after the success of NutrisHouse Bars where genuinely positive
results were being realized. Consumers
would not accept anymore that if a company does business they just cannot hand
over a payment to make them feel or in the worst case scenario, look good. The contribution of the company must be
genuine, involve the resources of the company and be done with the spirit of
improving the conditions in the surrounding areas. Even in the US, the spirit of corporate
contribution became more about first-hand infrastructure development rather
than continuing to do “fun runs, bake sales and raffles”, as Bill Gates put it
in 2007.</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-33784178533389785802012-10-24T08:39:00.000-04:002012-12-01T07:59:11.063-05:00Excerpt from Chapter 1 - changing perspective towards wealth<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Chapter 1 - Pages 8 & 9</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">---------------------------</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Historically, where the personal valuation had gone awry, however, was
in terms of the origin of one's individual wealth.<span style="font-size: small;"> The mere possession of money had come
to supersede the means of accumulating it. In the early twenty-first century, any individual could
accumulate wealth with no regard to the impact one made on other
individuals or society. The worst aspect of that system, however, is that one
could accumulate wealth at the expense of others. This was a flawed model, as the most
aggressive people and organizations, that seemingly prioritized wealth and
power, ended up accumulating a disproportionate amount of both and subsequently
started persecuting and taking an authoritative position in relation to those who
had less. This ultimately led to the “Occupy
Movement” in 2011 and 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">America fortunately came to realize that accumulation of wealth at the
expense of others is not wealth that should be judged as valuable or honorable.
Through the “New Freedom Initiative” (NFI), wealth that was accumulated without
adding value to individuals or society, started to become less respected or
desired, and per my initial point regarding human judgment, “unsavory money”
actually became judged as negative by a great majority of Americans. Just as an easy example, banks in America
came to refuse drug money out right by 2015.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The effect of this unsavory label was to encourage individual and
corporate wealth-building as a result of benefiting a wider group of society.
It would also serve to keep those who
had amassed their fortunes in a less than honorable manner from
having personal influence or access to broader political, business or social
institutions. No one ever argued that any
individual could not make money in America any way they liked. What came to pass, however, was that the
holding of that money did not automatically include power and influence along
with it.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="color: #222222; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">By the mid-2030s, ethics have since returned and are now a key component
to wealth-building such that the amount of money that one accumulates is reasonably
proportionate to the contribution one makes throughout that process.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In today’s world,
those individuals that provide the greatest benefit to society receive the
greatest return in terms of money, property, power and authority. As a result, most people can claim a higher
level of happiness and stability in 2043 than they ever could in 2013. This claim to happiness extends well beyond
American borders into parts of the world where in 2013 even having a claim on
clean water was rare. The world
genuinely has improved significantly as a result of changed attitudes toward
money.</span></span></div>
Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-79468887878835513722012-10-23T08:44:00.000-04:002012-12-01T08:01:36.074-05:00Excerpt from Chapter 7 -- Reforming the Legal System<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Chapter 7 -- Pages 139-140</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let’s get back to the legal system reforms.<span style="font-size: small;"> Lawyers in general, had allowed their
industry to get completely out of hand in the late twentieth century. There was no sense of law in what they did
and ultimately there was a distinct lack of contribution, and I’ll go as far as
to say ethics in their actions. Lawyers
were in my mind in the early twenty-first century, the biggest sponges on
society and sucked more value and goodness out of American culture than any
other group or professional sector in history.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Lawyers had taken the concept of right to defense and
due diligence to overshadow any other aspect of their being. Right to defense meant doing anything and
everything possible to create a measure of doubt in the minds of the jury. In worst case scenarios, they went as far as
to corrupt the entire spirit of the legal system. This situation of course was vehemently
opposed by me personally as I could never see the value of taking advantage of
weaknesses in the system and then to utilize that as a defense. Also, there was the need for judges and government
to correct the weaknesses in the system, rather than just exacerbating them and
making the weaknesses even more pronounced, such that it became an open flood
gate for inequity.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The premise of defendant’s rights was way more important
than the victim’s rights. I always
thought this was a gross betrayal of the American legal system that the
upstanding citizen that has been hurt by some part of society is not protected
at a minimum as much as the defendant. I
fully support the notion that all people are equal before the law, but the
victims have already suffered some type of injury and, as a result, should not
be subject to increased subjugation during the trial phase. Hence the emphasis on punishment and
retribution for crimes committed. The victim
should always have a sense of justice and compensation upon a guilty finding.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As with the deterrence for frivolous lawsuits by
citizens, lawyers who participated in bringing forth a frivolous lawsuit were
penalized within the context of the legal system itself. The legal group responsible for regulating
the conduct of its own members embraced a position of contribution over time
when they put in place a scholarly and principled type of person to deliver
this mandate. He devised a system
whereby contribution was a measured quality.
Along with the new measurement criteria, lawyers were graded as to their
competency across certain areas of expertise.
This ultimately led to the legal standards for compensation as well as
an access point for people who had been the victim of criminal activity.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">This point system was developed so that lawyers who
brought forward legitimate cases, argued them in the context of the law and
instituted new thinking in terms of the statutes were graded the highest. Lawyers who brought forward frivolous
lawsuits, argued them in context of non-legal issues and relied on precedent,
were summarily given lower scores.</span> </span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-83921042380735976982012-10-19T08:08:00.000-04:002012-12-01T07:51:43.415-05:00Henderson West's Campaign Platform<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">Excerpt from Chapter 2...pages 30, 31</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">------------</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">As part of my formal announcement, the very first
thing I did was state clearly and </span><span style="line-height: 18px;">publicly</span><span style="line-height: 115%;"> that I would propose no policy
platforms. What I did actually state at
the time was the following:</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; text-indent: -18pt;">I will
deal with each issue separately or as it materializes;</span></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%; text-indent: -18pt;">I will
think and work in the best interests of America;</span></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="line-height: 115%; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The
American public will be more involved in government;</span></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="line-height: 115%; text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Employment
in the public service will be effective and considered a privilege.</span></span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">These four items were all I ever promised to do if I were elected president.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">The reality of the world in 2012 was that it was just
too complex and too varied to have any type of formal agenda or ideology to
rely upon.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Most issues and events
materialize out of nowhere and have no historical context (or in some instances
too much) and are completely inharmonious with doctrines or previous
legislation.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Further, most modern issues
had too broad an application to generate a lot of interest by the American
public.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Therefore, I decided to make no claims that “I would
create jobs, institute health care, would democratize the world, no opinions of
foreign issues” etc.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">The people at the
time were astounded that I made no election type promises, but I knew from my
own observations that making promises based on a future situation that I did
not have any first hand facts on was ridiculous.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">For example, every American politician in the
previous forty or fifty years had indicated that they would balance the budget
but as soon as they get into power they have found a reason to suggest why they
can’t do it.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">I just didn’t see the point
in what I considered pandering to the American public.</span><br />
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I sensed that most Americans had so little faith in
political promises that I was simply asking US citizens to trust me based on my
business record and the fact that they liked and respected me. I did not want to appear to be a traditional
politician and, to be honest, it was not in my nature to act like that
anyway. I just wanted people to feel
that they were voting for someone who would do his best to do the right thing
by America rather than just another person in the role for theie own personal
benefit and power and was a puppet to their party</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Garamond, serif; line-height: 115%;">.</span><br />
<br />Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-83784274372030343492012-10-18T07:31:00.000-04:002012-12-01T08:03:11.064-05:00ff21st -- Excerpt from Chapter 10<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Excerpt from Chapter 10...page 235</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">------------</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In our modern time, there is no reason for
America to ever start a war of any kind.
Period. I have stated this
numerous times and many people consider me to be a bit soft as a result of this
pronunciation.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">However, I do see the need to maintain a
military and I do see the need on occasion to step in to rectify a situation
that is out of hand though we look at that as our normal doctrine of <i>“defend, free, enforce”</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The only reason in this era that America would
initiate a military action that some might consider proactive is in terms of
wars of conquest. Whether based on
historical territorial disputes, or simply a desire by one country to expand its
territory, this will never be tolerated by military means. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">As was initiated with the US purchase of
Kennedy and Newfoundland, growth can now be obtained by mutual negotiation and
or legal claims by the newly established global courts of geography. As nationalism has become less and less of a
driving force in the world, land transfers have become more and more a common
occurrence and have rectified the situation whereby one region feels the need
to invade another.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Finally, since the peace amnesty signed in
Bangkok in 2030 regarding conflicts of this nature, land disputes have
virtually dwindled away. Countries have
accepted their territorial boundaries and now more or less peacefully operate
within them.</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-45119436294107429572012-09-21T15:48:00.000-04:002012-10-19T10:02:59.551-04:00Chapter 1: continued<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">January 20<sup>th</sup>, 2013. Henderson Francis West is inaugurated as the
forty-fifth President of the United States of America. This is still hard for me to write as it
still seems so incredible to me as an individual, let alone as someone who has been
characterized by others as the “greatest man alive”. People magazine actually gave me that
infamous title in 2018 much to my personal embarrassment. A few of my more enthusiastic supporters have
even characterized me as the “greatest man in the history of the world”. Once again this is a completely incredulous depiction
of me and one which is simply ridiculous.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I am of course flattered and equally appreciative of
such extreme praise, but I still consider thoughts of this nature unequivocally
strange. I am, however, level-headed
enough to see the origin of such claims.
For example, one achievement I will readily acknowledge that has had
profound impact is my contribution to the overall health of the population of
the planet. I will admit freely and
proudly that I have delivered a great deal in my time, and I am very receptive
to the praise I receive in this area. To
me, my contribution in terms of world health is of the greatest significance.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Through my business successes, I have been able to
provide to literally millions of people proper nutrition through the
distribution of the universally recognized “NutrisHouse” brand. The recipients have benefitted not only in
receiving proper nutrition but also from receiving dignity, stability and an
appropriate level of quality of life such that overall enhanced and peaceful
living conditions became possible around the world. In return, I have been fortunate to receive
success and wealth far beyond what any single man should ever possess. Most importantly to me though, through my
wealth and success I had been offered a platform to exert influence and change
for the betterment of society and this is truly the greatest reward in my life.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Some other people give me my greatest credit for my
global contributions in terms of the numerous relief and charitable efforts
that I have first-handedly developed and moved forward, not only in my own business
world, but across the corporate and charitable landscape in general. My efforts, in the humanitarian realm, have led
to the expanded expectations of charitable organizations and even more influentially
on corporations and how they operate.
Corporations were to become more tangibly involved and extremely
influential wherever they conducted business rather than be merely
fund-raisers, check writers or public relations opportunists.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From my perspective, my greatest contribution in the
humanitarian area though was not so much in the area of physical, financial,
medical or on-ground mobilization.
Rather, I take the greatest pride in being a catalyst for a new level of
willingness to solve the world’s problems by private individuals and
organizations in general. Up until the
year 2012, most people looked to government and charities to fulfill the
humanitarian role. I was able to
leverage a truly caring mindset and attitude specifically of young Americans to
spear-head a cultural shift where young citizens would actually go to parts of
the world that required knowledge or relief efforts and give their time, education
and muscle. This mindset as it turned
out was critical as well for these people in their employment as they strived
to work with companies that reflected their spirit of generosity.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The result was that corporations came to realize that
through legitimate on-ground humanitarian efforts locally and internationally,
the value of their companies increased as their brand value increased. The era of exploiting developing nations,
leveraging humanitarian efforts for Public Relation improvement and profiteering
as the world continued to decline was coming to an end. I fortunately was able to show a new path
that ultimately provided improved world standards and delivered increased
corporate profits.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I feel comfortable in taking pleasure in the fact that
my contribution in the humanitarian realm far exceeded the negatives and as a
result, many of the world’s greatest inequities are being addressed, and a lot
of them have been eradicated. This is
what I truly want my legacy to be though I know it will not. I understand this though, as my efforts in
restoring democratic values and instilling a contribution valuation mindset
have had long-lasting profound effects on the world.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">My greatest contribution in America was in terms of
changing many of the institutions and fundamental thought processes so that we
were able to move-forward in a ridiculously complicated and globalized
world. As I mentioned, in the early
twenty-first century, most American institutions had become thoroughly inept at
being able to even function let alone strive for effectiveness. I figure that one can easily make the
argument that I might never have even won the 2012 election, if the
governmental processes were not as broken as they were at the time. It was this extremely broken system that I
completely despised that ultimately permitted me to win. </span>Life can be supremely ironic.</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-77879890069539599872012-09-11T13:34:00.000-04:002012-12-01T07:56:37.932-05:00ff21st -- Chapter 1 opening<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Thinking back thirty years to January 20, 2013, I have
to admit that I was a little disturbed and perhaps even terribly unhappy with
my situation. There I was, a
self-appointed poster-child for disillusionment with almost all institutional aspects
of America. I had grown up at the end of
the twentieth century and was pretty much willing to impugn any formal
organization, public institution and quite likely most existing modern mindsets
and “isms.” I was hardly an anarchist though
in any way, shape or form and I of course was a huge supporter of individual
freedom, but there is no way I could have seen myself as part of the process at
the time. I had prided my personal success
on being able to work-around process rather than immersing myself in it.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I also was an extremely successful businessman who had
accumulated wealth well into the billions.
I can’t say I was disillusioned at all about that part of America as it
had been simply a matter of hard-work, open-mindedness, a big chunk of
fairness, a strong vision and of course a little bit of good luck and timing
along the way. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I can honestly say that I was anti-government in most
of its forms at the start of the twenty-first century. In fact, one of the hallmarks of my business
success had been the ability to manage governmental process and obstacles. I had earned a reputation as someone who did
not really listen to governmental authority and regulation if a greater good
was being impeded. I pretty much held
government equally inept everywhere in the world. The USA though at the time was the worst.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Government in the early twenty-first century,
especially in the United States of America involved itself mostly in the
pursuit of self-interest and party politics.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">The Republican and Democratic parties basically just postured and
opposed each other in order to undermine, disgrace and usurp the authority of
whichever party, at the time, happened to have won the previous election.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">To me, it was an absolute waste of time and
energy that delivered virtually no benefit to the average American.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">It was an elitist system that protected the
interests of the party, business interests and the wealthy.</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">I had no interest in politics at the time and
contributed no personal energy or corporate finances to it in the years leading
up to 2013.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If you had, in fact, told me a year earlier, on my
forty-second birthday in 2012, that I was going to be the next president, and
that thirty years later my name would be synonymous with George Washington,
Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson, I would certainly have thought you to be
one of the dumbest people I had ever met.
There was no way in the world, that on March 31<sup>st</sup>, 2012, that
I could have imagined myself as president less than one year later.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">This is why I was genuinely angry in January 2013 as I
was being sworn in as the forty-fifth President of the United States of
America. </span>I can honestly say that in the
moment I really did not want the role and was wondering how I had just ruined
my life.</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-83223532871748219172012-08-16T09:00:00.002-04:002012-08-16T14:03:13.714-04:00Money As A Measure of Individual Value<br />
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-7846258521054761614" itemprop="articleBody" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 570px;">
<span style="line-height: normal;">Money is a great development to humanity.</span></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-7846258521054761614" itemprop="articleBody" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 570px;">
<span style="line-height: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-7846258521054761614" itemprop="articleBody" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 570px;">
<span style="line-height: normal;">Humanity</span><span style="line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="line-height: normal;">by nature is</span><span style="line-height: normal;"> extremely </span><span style="line-height: normal;">judgmental</span><span style="line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="line-height: normal;">and money at least is not personal. Utilizing money and wealth as a criteria for human judgement eliminates prejudices based on skin color, religion, geography, gender and this is a great thing. In our modern world, money trumps all else in terms of valuing people's worth and is a wonderful comparative tool such that we can individually get a sense of our worth</span><span style="line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="line-height: normal;">and</span><span style="line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="line-height: normal;">our placement</span><span style="line-height: normal;"> </span><span style="line-height: normal;">in society.</span><br />
<div style="line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal;">
Where this personal valuation has gone awry however is in terms of the origin of one's individual wealth. The mere possession of money has come to supersede the means of accumulating it. In our modern world any single person can accumulate wealth with no regard to the impact one makes on other individuals or society. The worst aspect of our current system though, is that one can accumulate wealth at the expense of others.</div>
<div style="line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal;">
In my eyes, accumulation of wealth at the expense of others is not wealth that should be judged as valuable or honorable. I suggest, that wealth that is accumulated without adding value to individuals or society should be shunned and per my initial point regarding human judgment, should actually be judged as negative.</div>
<div style="line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div>
The effect of this negative label would be to encourage individual wealth-building as a result of benefiting <span style="line-height: normal;">a wider group of persons. It would also serve to keep those who have amassed their fortunes in a less than </span>savory<span style="line-height: normal;"> manner from having personal influence or access to broader political, business or social institutions.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="line-height: normal;">Unsavory then becomes the criteria for valuation at this stage. Unsavory needs to defined as wealth-accumulation that derives from 1) illegal actions, 2) curtailing production, 3) reducing societal economic conditions or 4) detracting from the human condition. Recent examples of each would be as follows: 1) Bernie Madoff's 25 years of fraud, 2) stock market speculation, 3) Wall Streets</span> debt mortgage products and 4) pornography. This is just a quick list.</div>
<div style="line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: normal;">
Let me state clearly that anyone is still free to amass as large a fortune as they may want.</div>
<div style="line-height: normal;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="line-height: normal;">Ethics though need to be </span>re instituted into wealth-building such that the amount of money that one accumulates is proportionate to that contribution that is made throughout that process.</div>
</div>
Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-42224890875119555982012-07-26T08:24:00.000-04:002012-07-28T09:07:53.851-04:00The Dilemma of IslamThe issue that we are facing with the Islamic religion is a major one. Whether or not religious freedom can lead to a complete overhaul of the tenets that our nation was founded upon.<br />
<br />
By allowing Muslims to enter our society we essentially run the risk that at some point in the future this group becomes powerful enough to usurp the fundamental nature of America.<br />
<br />
For example in Britain, a recent poll was conducted within the Muslim community and 40% of the respondents indicated that they would like to see Sharia Law imposed. Right now, that number does not constitute a large number of voters but it clearly articulates the point for the future and one that we in America have to consider. Is it right to allow a group of people who are fundamentally opposed to the American way of life into the country?<br />
<br />
The First Amendment of the Constitution offers religious freedom as a fundamental right of humanity. However, if those claiming religious freedoms are not interpreting that doctrine in a manner consistent with freedom but rather pro ports a moral code and political direction that undermines the basic philosophy of individual freedom then should it be opposed? I would say 100% a<span style="background-color: white;">bsolutely.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">The </span><span style="background-color: white;">Constitution further suggests that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion..." though it does not go as far as separating church and state as many people believe It is obvious that religious fundamentals are not universally shared but the basis of individual freedom is an ability to make independent decisions. Any group or organization that disagrees with this view point should be resisted in their access to American institutions or their ability to construct their own. Individuals would be able to worship as they choose but any attempt to organize to undermine principals of freedom and independence should be opposed.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">It is not necessary to ban Muslims from moving to the USA but efforts should definitely be made to curtail them from gaining any type of influence. For example, several steps can be taken at this point to curtail an emergent political movement that supports Sharia Law or strives to change the nature of America.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">The first would be the banning of any Muslim from holding political office at any level. Two, limiting of mobility within the nations borders upon entry. Thirdly, the holding back of US citizenship until individuals have demonstrated an ability to appreciate the principals of the western world and finally the out right ban of Muslim schools.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Though these thoughts sound counter-intuitive to the basic fundamentals that the USA holds paramount, keep in mind that America has only ever had to deal with fundamental opposition to freedoms on this scale once before and that lead to a Civil War. The goal is not to limit <u>individual </u>freedoms rather ensure that the thinking and principals that have allowed the world to thrive continue unabated by a religious/political movement at the institutional level.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-52916443095289404292012-07-18T13:03:00.000-04:002012-07-18T13:43:28.259-04:00Why Does Justice Take So Long?The entirety of the judicial process needs to be shortened such that criminal activity is dealt with in a reasonable and effective manner.<br />
<br />
The most important thing that has to happen is that the time lines associated with the process must be shortened.<br />
<br />
No criminal trial should ever last more than a year from the time of the infraction. This is possible if the following tactics are implemented. One, lawyers on either side are compensated by determining the truth. Two, the police are given broader abilities to investigate crime and to collect evidence and three the judiciary simply works harder.<br />
<br />
Conceptually, the idea of plausibility has to be eliminated. The notion of reasonable doubt has clouded the legal system as defense lawyers create any myriad of arguments to create an image of innocence. They genuinely create artificial circumstances to cast doubt on the guilt of the accused with no bearing on the facts at all. This should be considered a highly unethical and a catastrophic abandonment of legal principal.<br />
<br />
Also, the legal system seems more than willing to take into account mitigating circumstances. Why? If the crime is committed than punishment is warranted. Though one can argue as to the compassionate nature of our society by considering the factors that might lead to violent crime they should not be admitted as they just cloud the issue at hand i.e. guilt or innocence and take up time.<br />
<br />
The first step to changing the system is to have lawyers on both sides of the process paid by how well they arrive at the actual circumstances of the case. The notion of guilt and innocence needs to go away. The defense is obligated to provide evidence it collects and witness statements including those from the accused into the trial. The defense should never be considered a process to create excuses for the action, twist the facts and in worse case even create lies. The accused also needs to be required to take the stand in all trials.<br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Lady Justice is symbolic of being blind to the equitable nature of who is the accused rather than being blind to the truth itself. The framers of the Constitution envisioned a system of judicial equality not one where the truth is incidental.</span>Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-34126516597446152802012-06-20T07:26:00.002-04:002012-06-20T07:26:24.309-04:00The Recognition Era - Part 2, What It Means "Top Ten" List conc.<br />
This post is the continuation of a previous post on Friday, June 15, 2012.<br />
<br />
---------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
Six. <u>Irresponsibility</u>. The world is very complex and it is pretty tough in today`s social, business, political arenas to assign blame to an individual. Even in instances whereby direct blame is is obvious the subject can easily find excuses for poor performance. Problem solving and putting out fires is a better skill these days than foresight.<br />
<br />
Seven. <u>Apathy</u>. People care about what they consider important more than ever and not much else. Further,as the need for recognition is paramount, effort will only be put towards areas whereby there can be acknowledgement. Subsequently, if recognition cannot be attained then people won't care and will not put any effort at all towards areas in which there is no success.<br />
<br />
Eight. <u>Triviality</u>. Recognition for its own sake does not require significance. Therefore, people will attempt to succeed in areas that are niche and quite likely inconsequential. Being acknowledged for being good at something trumps the importance of the activity as well as any type of moral contribution. As recognition is the key driver, the means of acknowledgement is inconsequential therefore non-traditional socially acceptable means will become mainstream. Crime, pornography, abhorrent behavior.<br />
<br />
Nine. <u>Ease</u>. Very few people appear to want to work hard for anything these days. Recognition and success have to come easy and early for anyone to pursue it. No one wants to see the fruits of their labor materialize three years down the road. Instant impact and rewards are what drives motivation in the twenty-first century so abandonment of difficult tasks will occur frequently.<br />
<br />
Ten. <u>Individuality</u>. Recognition is greatest when it is a singular achievement. More and more people will strive to be acknowledged for their own efforts rather than being part of a collaborative team. Within the team environment as well there is a need to be considerate and follow much more procedure which is the bane of individuality. As everyone feels that they know what is the best course of action for them, then teamwork will become the antithesis of the individually minded person.<br />
<br />
All these things in total do not necessarily require negativity rather a willingness to be accommodating and an ability to manage in this new Recognition era.Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-49962638887048742432012-06-15T14:22:00.005-04:002012-06-16T07:45:48.393-04:00The Recognition Era - What It Means "Top Ten" ListAs the world becomes less focused on accomplishment and more on recognition here is what we can expect. Here is a proverbial Top Ten list split into two postings.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Firstly, an overall <u>decrease in quality</u> of just about everything. From clothes, to cars, to food you name it, it will get worse. The exception of course will be at the high-end or luxury type items whereby those who can afford quality will be able to purchase it. Everything will be built or grown to ultimately be disposable so quality will be a secondary goal. Consumers expect their products now to be functional and design-oriented. Durability is not something younger generations strive for as they are used to products being replaced regularly due to advancing technologies, evolving trends which has lead to an inherent obsolescence of goods and services.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Two. <u>Transiency</u>. There will be an increased growth in movement as people can simply leave one area or sector where they are not getting enough attention and search out greener pastures. The easiest way to get recognition is to be the "new guy" as expectations are usually lower while attention is usually at its peak. People will however, will still want to gravitate upwards in their careers so expect a lot more movement as candidates for internal promotion become less and less available.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Three. <u>Sound-bites</u>. The recognition era is of course driven by short attention spans and digital media. Therefore, do not ever expect to have time to explain yourself fully. Every message including personal conversation has to be delivered quickly. The result will be that society and business more forward in a piece-meal fashion and requires leadership who can respond quickly and effectively but also mobilize those around them to respond as well. Think of it as flash mob leadership.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Four. <u>Inconsistency</u>. Most people these days hold more of a go with the flow approach. Just look at the political world to see that what the candidates said five years ago is no longer meaningful nor are they even individually accountable for it. The world is changing very fast and new information surfaces constantly so what worked last week may no longer be even relevant. Planning will become less influential when compared to the need for speedy reaction times.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Five. <u>Success</u>. Success will not be 100% measured in terms of pay and income. Flexibility of working, unique processes and freedom of action will become paramount. No one who thinks they are special want to do things the same way as everyone else. Quick promotion and titles will be more important. Expect the companies that get and retain the best people to be the ones with the least amount of management. Plus, many younger people have access to their boomer parents wealth and know they are OK financially.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Numbers 6 through 10 will be available on Wednesday, June 20, 2012.
</div>Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8374670853464534089.post-57209203567271790622012-06-13T06:56:00.000-04:002012-06-15T10:58:43.583-04:00The Recognition Era: Accolades without Achievement<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">People today prioritize and strive for
recognition over all else.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The days of
actually earning recognition through accomplishment have
been overtaken by a world whereby accolade is easier in a self-developed media environment and subsequently there has grown a culture of reward for nothing else
other than doing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Reality TV is the
obvious outcome as people who have no significant skill or talent and certainly
have not achieved anything are watched and on occasion celebrated for
doing absolutely nothing. This phenomenon extends from people
going about their daily jobs like building motorcycles or catching fish to the
full blown cult of celebrity whereby people who are otherwise normal gain a following for merely being followed by cameras (the Kardashian's for
example).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Our society has created
this from birth as we no longer embrace a spirit of accomplishment to
gain recognition nor do we rely on competition to distinguish those
who deserve accolades. Everyone today, who in the past would have been
considered average receives acknowledgement. At a recent university
graduation, every graduating member of the class received
Honours or Distinction status. What is the point?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In sports, there
is a Para-Olympic program that permits those
with disabilities to perform on a world stage
though quite often their achievements are microscopic when
compared to the world’s best. In fairness though, these folks work very hard to get where they are. Even in team sports overall, a spirit of
inclusion and equality of playing time quite often is paramount when
compared to winning and losing so why even refer to it as sport? Under
these conditions it has become merely exercise.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">YouTube has given every single person in the world the opportunity to be acknowledged for doing nothing more than holding a camera. Sadly, the elements of YouTube that attracts the most attention are cat videos, people doing dumb things and Justin Bieber. None of which adds anything to a broader society beyond a few brief seconds of distraction.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On an extremely more
negative note, recognition has also become more important for the
truly dysfunctional element of society. These individuals now
feel justified in undertaking quite spectacular atrocities so that they
receive some type of acknowledgement as they know that they cannot be
acknowledged within modern societal norms.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What needs to
happen is that achievement and accolades have to become more attainable without
the media being present and/or for merely fulfilling the mundane part of existence. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">People who deliver results and rise above difficult circumstances
certainly warrant more from society than they currently receive. People who contribute greatly to their local
community deserve more pay. People who
rise above the norm deserve more acknowledgements for their contributions. Those who truly have unique skills or achieve
major accomplishments in athletics, business, entertainment, beauty can still
attain disproportionate amounts of success due to their personal
accomplishments.</span><span style="font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>Henderson Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11425912459144612559noreply@blogger.com0